Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Science Fan »

In a recent debate I am having with another user, an issue came up that I thought may justify a new thread. I am an atheist, I do not believe in any god or anything supernatural, literally, anything that is alleged to be above nature. A Christian whom I am debating with then stated in one of his comments that atheists cannot even make moral claims; that is, atheists are people walking around who have no sense of morality whatsoever. I find this assertion to be not only factually false, but one that undermines our secular form of government in the USA, which is based on a separation of church and state. The reason is simple: Although we should desire a separation of church and state, we should not desire a separation of morality and state. If the only basis for morality, however, is based on religion, then this invites a fusion of state and church. It is only by recognizing the actual facts that religion has nothing to do with morality that we can maintain a separation of church and state.

Religion and/or theism has nothing to do with morality. Morality exists among our closest relatives, chimps and bonobos, to the extent that even an alpha male cannot violate a social norm, which is true morality, these chimps and bonobos literally have a concept of what ought to be, and not merely what is. Yet, they have no religion. They certainly are not Christians. It is also likely our ancestors had similar moral beliefs long before religions were established. Common sense tells us that unless our brains were hardwired for morality, we could not even comprehend moral claims made by religion. So, purely as a factual matter, we know that not only can people be moral without religion, but that religion is itself dependent on morality, and religion has it completely backwards when it claims morality cannot exist without religion. Therefore, keeping a separation of church and state still allows us to have a fusion of morality and state.

Acknowledging that atheists can be moral is necessary in order to maintain a secular form of government. The religious demonization of atheists is, therefore, properly looked upon as an attack against secular forms of government in general, and not just an isolated attack against a minority.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Walker »

Separation of church and state:

The foundation of the country is the freedom to practice religion without government interference.
Reference - The Pilgrims.

When a kid prays in school, and the government says the kid cannot do that, then the government is interfering with the practice of the religion. That’s a no-no.

Non-interference with a religion does not equate to endorsing a particular religion.

To maintain separation with the state, churches are tax exempt.

The rules say that to maintain that exemption, a church cannot endorse a particular political candidate, however just as discussion of religion in schools is constitutionally allowed (er, make that protected) by the first amendment, so is discussion of politics in church.

Separation of church and state does not mean banishment of religion from society.

*

Morality requires dualistic, relationship standard in order to be defined.

If not the ideal of a God manifesting through the social rules of a religion, then the only other standard is life.

Morality is an intent that either promotes life, or discourages life. Amorality has no intent other than personal.

Within these parameters are set the scope of morality. Does one’s actions for the promotion or discouragement of life apply only to oneself, or does it pertain to all humans? What other humans? Does it include critters? And so on.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Science Fan »

You have your history and law completely wrong. The pilgrims persecuted religious minorities, and never, ever, allowed religious freedom.

Legally, it is only if a government forces one to pray that the act is illegal. A student at a public school in the USA can pray on their own, that's not a violation of the law, it's just that the government cannot give official support to such actions, because that would be in violation of the First Amendment.

Prayer doesn't work anyway, so I'm not sure why anyone thinks prayer in schools is a good idea.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9564
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Harbal »

Science Fan wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2017 7:23 pm Prayer doesn't work anyway,
That's prayer denial, it could even be a fallacy. I'm putting you on the great ignore list in the sky pending further investigation.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Science Fan wrote:I am an atheist, I do not believe in any god or anything supernatural, literally, anything that is alleged to be above nature. A Christian whom I am debating with then stated in one of his comments that atheists cannot even make moral claims; that is, atheists are people walking around who have no sense of morality whatsoever. I find this assertion to be not only factually false, but one that undermines our secular form of government in the USA, which is based on a separation of church and state.
Since the word 'moral' comes from Latin moralis, from mos: custom, it is clear that all peoples and societies make moral choices. Natural law as well proposes a natural and non-transcendental means of determining right and wrong, good and bad. These exist in all cultures and indeed are manifestations of human culture.

But a moral choice, even if one of natural law, takes place within consciousness, within a mental world and an evaluative world, a world of choice and valuation which has no objective existence, such that when it is reduced merely to 'brain chemistry' by materialist and scientistic perspectives, and it can have no real weight except insofar as others agree with the valuation or the terms of valuation. Who shall make the ultimate decisions?

One group of upright brain chemicals, therefor, could say to another group of brain chemicals: "The organization of your brain chemistry, ie the thoughts you think, is erroneous. We do not recognize it as valid nor even real. We opt the negate it completely and, FYI, will reengineer you and your offspring to accept only our version".

The meaning here is that 'valuation' must occur in the mind and consciousness of a judge. Someone who makes assessments and communicates them to another. I am curious to know on what basis would a very very strict 'scientist' who only recognizes matter and biology and no higher domain, arrive at an explanation of what happens within the mind of that judge, and also how what that judge arrives at can be supported and justified? Some other judge? Some group of judges who vote?

It seems to me that as the doctrine of atheism takes hold and as it penetrates deeper into the social layers and comes to be seen as 'normal', and certainly when corporations of people make decisions strictly on the basis of natural law or personally-determined morality, or those of pure expediency and necessity, that more and more the decisions that are made, will be made mechanically. They are not really quite 'moral' decisions in the sense that Immanuel Can means, but are rather questions of expedience.

In contradistinction, the idea and the fact of a revealed moral code is presented as and understood to be an 'objective' revelation. It is a system which, obviously, interjects itself into a natural scenario (the human world) and as far as Christianity is concerned is seen as being of a transcendental order. It is understood not as originating in man, and this is an important feature. Thus it presents a set of values which have to be worked out, thought about, meditated on. But it also represents a culture-wide standard to which everyone could refer and also was required to refer.

It seems to me that when it happens that the 'atheistic' method of determining right and wrong (as well as 'real' and 'unreal' and many other categories) really takes hold, it will place a great deal of emphasis on the immediate physical manipulation of thinking processes by mechanisms. It sounds a little science-fiction-like, I know. But once you have reduced man to a 'mere' biological entity, and once you have asserted nothing above or over (the meta), what you have left is bioplasm to be manipulated. Since only the mind and consciousness can steer the flesh and matter in which the mind resides, and if the mind and consciousness are merely random and meaningless impulses replacable by any others and just as 'valid', it is not hard to see where this will lead.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Greta »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2017 9:28 pmIt seems to me that as the doctrine of atheism takes hold and as it penetrates deeper into the social layers and comes to be seen as 'normal', and certainly when corporations of people make decisions strictly on the basis of natural law or personally-determined morality, or those of pure expediency and necessity, that more and more the decisions that are made, will be made mechanically. They are not really quite 'moral' decisions in the sense that Immanuel Can means, but are rather questions of expedience.
What you say is probably true as regards the uneducated and backward with inadequate education and mentoring, some of whom will benefit from having absolute moral limits set for them.

Otherwise the situation is the opposite. That is, religions are tribes that bond people together to compete against the other great tribes (religions). Religions have nothing to do with care of the Earth, of humanity as a whole and other species. The purpose is only to further that religion and its followers' welfare over its competitors.

By contrast, secularism invites a more universal viewpoint, one that considers and favours all, not just a particular theistic power bloc, hence the advent of humanism, which includes all of the important moral codes listed by theists but avoids the biases and odd cultural aspects of religions.
Impenitent
Posts: 4332
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Impenitent »

Science Fan wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2017 7:23 pm You have your history and law completely wrong. The pilgrims persecuted religious minorities, and never, ever, allowed religious freedom.

Legally, it is only if a government forces one to pray that the act is illegal. A student at a public school in the USA can pray on their own, that's not a violation of the law, it's just that the government cannot give official support to such actions, because that would be in violation of the First Amendment.

Prayer doesn't work anyway, so I'm not sure why anyone thinks prayer in schools is a good idea.
as long as students forget to study for the test, there will be prayer in schools...

-Imp
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Interesting perspective, Greta.

I rather am of the opinion that it is certainly and more evidently the semi-educated, the quasi-educated, and certainly the so-called educated classes that very much need to reconnect with the Occidental spiritual and religious traditions. Not only as documents to be read, but rather to come in again to communion. When I say communion I mean internal relationship, prayer life, yet I would probably also refer to ceremonial relationship, as with the Traditional Mass. It is more than likely that everything that I write and think will appear to you and others as thoroughly outlandish and outrageous but I am making concerted efforts to be honest. Better to be honest and encounter honest opposition than to fail to state what one really thinks and not provide the information to others with which they can form solid opinions and judgments.

The lower classes, in my own view and direct experience, do not now show much interest in those moral or ethical affairs of which we are speaking, nor do they really seem capable of deciding 'the really important questions of life'. I have gotten a certain amount of flak for saying such things, and again I am only trying to be honest. The widest swath of humanity simply desires, if that is the right word, to live life. They do not desire to think things through. Obviously, this returns emphasis to that class of persons who can and who do. And even within that class --- by that I mean people with some modicum of education as you evidently feel that you possess (?) --- I have very definitely noticed that these folk are in no sense necessarily more advantaged in having *real knowledge* nor *real understanding*. In some ways they are more at a disadvantage, more hobbled: they have been told and told themselves that they are special; that they see things truly and clearly (et cetera). I would not completely generalize against the 'educated class' as it might seem I am. Yet they are men and like all men they are just as frail as any other and sometimes even more so.

I do not speak in terms of 'religions' in the plural. The religion that is primary to Occidental culture is Christianity. Further, it is the only religion that has plunged as intensely and meaningfully into every single important question and issue that man (Occidental man if you wish) confronts. It has, in fact, given birth to the categories of concern which you mention and high-light. It is now very weakened and this may get worse, but it will recover. That is my prediction. It is infinitely versatile.

You think in terms of 'religions' because they are all meaningless to you. You could have a big box of 'religions' and you would dump it all in the trash and not blink over it. I focus on the Occidental religion because it is the life and spirit which has made the Occident the Occident. Everything (or most) arises out of it, and everything (and most) returns back to it. But not to dead-letters but rather to The Spirit.

What is interesting to me about *people like you* (that is if I am reading you right, and I may not be) is that you have already and long ago crossed an interesting line. In comparison to me, for example. My situation is that of having come to the surface of a *pond* as it were and I look up toward something I need to make much more a part of myself. What I call the upper world or the 'angelical world' or the intelligible world. In relation to *it* I am fallen indeed. The recovery process, I am beginning to understand, is a significant and demanding commitment and very difficult of attainment. But at the very least I see it. As I approach it, it becomes more real.

But for those who are 'atheists' (and I do see atheism as very much an erroneous perspective and, if you will, a 'fault' that must be overcome)(obviously!) you are on the other side of the line, the surface of the *pond* I refer to. The more that you move down and away from that surface, the more that you attempt to and indeed need to define the 'truth' of your state of unbelief (as it were). Instead of working together to construct a platform of perspective or of working to retain the Grace which is necessary for vision (I speak in Greco-Christian lingo obviously), you move deliberately further and further away from even that need. It is an odd sort of reversal: you must make unbelief more real and find the *proofs* you need to construct certainty in that perspective or self-orientation, and the more you do this, the less able you are to see the *surface* I refer to. But the *surface* is only the beginning point anyway. The whole *upper dimension* remains inconceivable.

You are in substantial error of course insofar as the perspective I have is truthful or real. And not only is your error a misfortune for you, though I know that this must be bothersome to hear, but your activity is very harmful to people generally. I suggest that you cannot conceive and underatnd why this is so. It is actually extremely damaging to culture, to civilization overall, to health and well-being. Yet! you understand yourself to be the balm that cures the evil, the evil of *religion*. These are common ideas, reenforced at many levels.

This general idea, in my system of understanding, very definitely fits in with my notions about renewal, regeneration, reconstruction, rebuilding. It is imperative to go to the heart of the Occident and to rediscover what is of motive, enduring and eternal value there. And a great deal of that dovetails into transcendencies.

Therefor, and in my view, the real *leaders* of men are the ones who do succeed in plunging those depths and restoring transcendental value, not in doing away with it.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Lacewing »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:57 am My situation is that of having come to the surface of a *pond* as it were and I look up toward something I need to make much more a part of myself. What I call the upper world or the 'angelical world' or the intelligible world. In relation to *it* I am fallen indeed. The recovery process, I am beginning to understand, is a significant and demanding commitment and very difficult of attainment. But at the very least I see it. As I approach it, it becomes more real.

But for those who are 'atheists' (and I do see atheism as very much an erroneous perspective and, if you will, a 'fault' that must be overcome)(obviously!) you are on the other side of the line, the surface of the *pond* I refer to. The more that you move down and away from that surface, the more that you attempt to and indeed need to define the 'truth' of your state of unbelief (as it were).
:lol:

Your pond analogy is very appropriate for reflecting the murky limitations and smallness of your views. While you're piddling around at the surface of your pond like a bug, there are vast oceans and universes that are not limited to the self-indulgent perspective you so delight in elevating and sustaining yourself with.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Can bugs really be said to piddle?
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Lacewing »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: Sun Jun 18, 2017 1:59 am Can bugs really be said to piddle?
I want to respond, but I can't stop laughing.

:lol:
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Greta »

My understanding is that aquatic insects excrete waste ammonia. However, if we consider, say, a pond skater, then we may imagine the teeny drops of ammonia making the tiniest of ripples in a pond. It is these tiny ripples that I believe Lacewing is apportioning to Gustav's views. I also disagree with him, so all we need is Veggie joining in and this will look like a panel of Beauty and the Beast.

I don't think Gustav understands that people can be interested in possible spiritual dimensions of life without subscribing to a particular ancient doctrine. Why must one of these ancient guesses as to the nature of reality be correct in its assumptions? They may well all be wrong? We all may be wrong.

I suppose it depends on whether one thinks the ancients or the moderns know more about reality. I personally side with the extra two thousand years of learning and inquiry, plus the incorporation of global perspectives, being open-minded about what may be learned next.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Lacewing »

Greta wrote: Sun Jun 18, 2017 2:55 am My understanding is that aquatic insects excrete waste ammonia. However, if we consider, say, a pond skater, then we may imagine the teeny drops of ammonia making the tiniest of ripples in a pond. It is these tiny ripples that I believe Lacewing is apportioning to Gustav's views.
Thank you for the excellent description of this form of piddling in Gustav's Pond. I was also thinking of "piddling" as in dawdling around in an ineffective and wasteful way (in utter fixation on the pond). Gustav's question as to whether a bug can piddle in this way (I'm guessing), would seem to suggest a belief that all bugs have an agenda they are committed to -- and I just don't think we can know that. I can imagine that there are bugs that don't know what the hell they are doing... and they just buzz in circles.
Greta wrote: Sun Jun 18, 2017 2:55 amI don't think Gustav understands that people can be interested in possible spiritual dimensions of life without subscribing to a particular ancient doctrine.
I think it's a threatening concept for theists to accept because it dismantles (for some) the precarious and convoluted structure of some belief systems, thereby revealing that there's nothing behind the curtain. To accept that people can experience spirituality (and all of the awareness and sense of sacredness that goes with it) as naturally as breathing, would be to accept that specific paths aren't required... or possibly even what they appear to be.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Gustav most certainly does understand that, Greta, and I can vouch for him in this. What Gustav would say is that he supposes that Greta herself is completely and thoroughly a product and an outcome of these traditions referred to, so that when she sat down to meditate upon *spiritual dimensions* that she would do so because unnumbered generations of men and women had, as it were, carved out a certain space for her soul to move in and through. Just as, for example, a literary person, in any utterance, is really uttering in a sort of chorus, though he does not know it. If what I suggest is true, we must not so much refer to an 'ancient doctrine' only, but rather an entire current of consciousness in which we participate and have our being.

As to your question, the only way that I imagine that it could be answered to your satisfaction is if you yourself delved into it enough to get the answer. Not to imply that you would. Yet it is the only way that you could get an answer that would amount to an answer.

My view is wider than a strict and limiting religiosity and I refer to Occidental Paideia which is really a tremendously wide realm of different elements and facets. I think your question becomes empty in the face of what is there to work with. What we have to work with is what we are, and what we are is an outcome of what has been realized, felt, expressed and understood.

It seems to me that some ancients know a great deal more about reality in certain senses in a similar sense as they usually say that the Greeks, Heaven knows how, managed in one amazing explosion of discovery to lay out 'a whole world' of ideation which is still being worked out. Can you think of a new explosion of knowledge or new categories of knowing opened up in later times? I am not sure that I can.

To say They may all be wrong, We may all be wrong is a vain claim. Sure, it is possible except that it has not happened.

Can't say that I disagree with 'incorporation of global perspectives' and would not negate 'open-mindedness' about what may be learned next. I guess I would quibble, perhaps substantially, against those who have become --- shall I say --- unnecessarily unmoored from their own heritage and traditions and ignorant of what is really in them. That is really one of my main concerns and because I notice it so strongly.

I also do think that Grace is a real condition, a real possibility I might say, and if one accepts that as so, one would then ask on what it depends, which would bring one back to regard what some 'ancients' at least had to say about it.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Bugs have no agenda at all, Lacewing. (Oh, I am lecturing a real bug!) They are pure biological mechanism and yet completely unified with their 'dharma' as it were, don't you think? No bug 'knows what it is doing' and if it seems to fly aimlessly that is a mis-perception. It is not a question of aimlessness and purpose but only what stands behind both.

I wonder if you are aware, Esteemed Lacewing, that what you wrote in your second paragraph you have said, in different ways, hundreds and hundreds of times? But you forgot to include the part about 'dancing in the new unknown' (I forgot how it goes) or some such spinning metaphor ...

How girls love to spin & spin!

The thing I would mention, and I do so because it seems pretty obvious to me, is that when most people have their 'sacred traditions' torn away from them (it can happen through many causes) they do not tend to become aware of 'the sacredness of all things' 'as naturally as breathing'. Something else happens: a descent into nescience. In a culture of mechanism, anomie and absence of God (if you'll permit me to put it like that) people do tend to get lost ...

I certainly recognize that certain people can and do experience various sort of 'spirituality' and 'sacredness', but usually those are rare people anyway and often they are continuing in footsteps of their parents or immediate generations. To say that 'specific paths are not required' is a popular refrain, especially among those who have felt a need to break out of a restrictive tradition. I've known many like that. I certainly can't blame them.

The tone that you reveal though when you speak in this way harkens to a person who speaks, whether she realizes it or not, not from some radically new path ('where breathing feels like something new') but rather a sort of post-religious position.
Post Reply